Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

And according to previous SCOTUS rulings, non-federal police forces have zero legal responsibility for enforcing federal laws.

Alpha 1 wrote:
Yeah but the difference there is the NYPD is one if not the largest Police force in the world something like 35000 officers that is a small army, not to mention they are well funded, trained and equipped to handle those situations. The BLM more than likely deal with much smaller communities with police forces that do not have the funding, equipment or training to handle something like the Bundy case and what is more important is that the Police might not be impartial to the situation and even support the suspect and relying on these officer could put BLM agents in danger.

But, as the BLM is a federal agency, dealing with federal laws, they could/should call in other federal agencies (like the FBI) rather than be expected to rely solely on local law enforcement. I mean, they certainly should talk with local PD about the issue, it would give them some "intel" on the people they are after, and they will be able to gauge whether the local PD is sympathetic to the law, or the people and make the decision right then to call up the FBI, or ATF or whoever.

 Ensis Ferrae wrote:

Alpha 1 wrote:
Yeah but the difference there is the NYPD is one if not the largest Police force in the world something like 35000 officers that is a small army, not to mention they are well funded, trained and equipped to handle those situations. The BLM more than likely deal with much smaller communities with police forces that do not have the funding, equipment or training to handle something like the Bundy case and what is more important is that the Police might not be impartial to the situation and even support the suspect and relying on these officer could put BLM agents in danger.

But, as the BLM is a federal agency, dealing with federal laws, they could/should call in other federal agencies (like the FBI) rather than be expected to rely solely on local law enforcement. I mean, they certainly should talk with local PD about the issue, it would give them some "intel" on the people they are after, and they will be able to gauge whether the local PD is sympathetic to the law, or the people and make the decision right then to call up the FBI, or ATF or whoever.

What makes the FBI or ATF responsible for enforcing land management laws and enforcing court orders dealing with land management cases?

What gives the BLM the legal right to enforce non BLM activities? SWAT groups aren't land management.

if there's a threat thats a potential crime. thats law enforcement. Not tree enforcement.

 d-usa wrote:

What makes the FBI or ATF responsible for enforcing land management laws and enforcing court orders dealing with land management cases?

Well, the FBI is responsible for federal crime, as well as "state" crime that crosses multiple states. .. and I threw ATF in there, because it always ends up going pear shaped with those clowns.

Is there really that much difference between all the agencies having armed forces, and having them rely on some other agency for those issues? I mean, one way or another you will have X of people with guns.

 Ensis Ferrae wrote:

 d-usa wrote:

What makes the FBI or ATF responsible for enforcing land management laws and enforcing court orders dealing with land management cases?

Well, the FBI is responsible for federal crime, as well as "state" crime that crosses multiple states. .. and I threw ATF in there, because it always ends up going pear shaped with those clowns.

There is no such thing as "federal crime", the FBI is not the "Federal PD".

The FBI themselves have a narrow and specific area that they are responsible for.

You mean this?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Title_18_of_the_United_States_Code

And the FBI deals with specific sections of it. As to other agencies.

So there is such thing as federal crime.

If its not a federal crime federal agencies have no jurisdiction.

People, not land or goods, are the proper object of policing. Federal lands may require management but they do not require policing. If people violate federal laws regarding land owned by the federal government, then an agency dedicated to policing people should be involved.

BLM's stated mission is "to sustain the health, diversity, and productivity of the public lands for the use and enjoyment of present and future generations." If in the course of executing that mission a scenario that requires the use of deadly force should occur, the BLM should coordinate with a separate police agency.

In my view, furthermore, non-police agencies should always have to coordinate with police agencies through the office of an elected official.

Daemonhammer wrote:
Is there really that much difference between all the agencies having armed forces, and having them rely on some other agency for those issues?

Yes. It would allow for accountability, especially if it was directed through an elected office.

Elected officials should be more directly responsible for the use of deadly force in executing the law.

 Frazzled wrote:
So there is such thing as federal crime.

If its not a federal crime federal agencies have no jurisdiction.

You will notice that I said there is no "federal crime".

As in "oh no, this crime is federal, call the FBI", in response to the statement that the FBI deals with all federal crime.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Manchu wrote:
People, not land or goods, are the proper object of policing. Federal lands may require management but they do not require policing. If people violate federal laws regarding land owned by the federal government, then an agency dedicated to policing people should be involved.

BLM's stated mission is "to sustain the health, diversity, and productivity of the public lands for the use and enjoyment of present and future generations." If in the course of executing that mission a scenario that requires the use of deadly force should occur, the BLM should coordinate with a separate police agency.

In my view, furthermore, non-police agencies should always have to coordinate with police agencies through the office of an elected official.

Daemonhammer wrote:
Is there really that much difference between all the agencies having armed forces, and having them rely on some other agency for those issues?

Yes. It would allow for accountability, especially if it was directed through an elected office.

Elected officials should be more directly responsible for the use of deadly force in executing the law.

So when somebody brings a gun into my hospital, who do you think I should call or who should be responsible for enforcing that violating of that particular federal law?

So when somebody brings a gun into my hospital, who do you think I should call or who should be responsible for enforcing that violating of that particular federal law?

Call 911. Someone with a Brick er Glock will be around directly.

 d-usa wrote:
So when somebody brings a gun into my hospital, who do you think I should call or who should be responsible for enforcing that violating of that particular federal law?

Buildings open to the public are allowed to employ security guards. You also have recourse to the police.

Do you think there should also be a group of armed, tactically trained federal nurses?

Just FYI, I don't think the federal government has any business legislating about whether firearms can be brought into hospitals (not that I think they should be brought into hospitals).

 d-usa wrote:
So when somebody brings a gun into my hospital, who do you think I should call or who should be responsible for enforcing that violating of that particular federal law?

Clearly the BLM

 Manchu wrote:

 d-usa wrote:
So when somebody brings a gun into my hospital, who do you think I should call or who should be responsible for enforcing that violating of that particular federal law?

Buildings open to the public are allowed to employ security guards. You also have recourse to the police.

Do you think there should also be a group of armed, tactically trained nurses?

Nurse Patrol, they'll blast you then patch you back up!

 Manchu wrote:

 d-usa wrote:
So when somebody brings a gun into my hospital, who do you think I should call or who should be responsible for enforcing that violating of that particular federal law?

Buildings open to the public are allowed to employ security guards. You also have recourse to the police.

Security cannot enforce laws, local police have no jurisdiction in federal facilities.

Do you think there should also be a group of armed, tactically trained nurses?

No. We have our own police department, for investigating and enforcing federal laws that relate to our operation.

Do you think I should call the FBI and tell the guy holding a gun to his head in the parking lot to wait, the FBI agents will be here to talk to him in a couple of hours?

 d-usa wrote:

Do you think there should also be a group of armed, tactically trained nurses?

No. We have our own police department, for investigating and enforcing federal laws that relate to our operation.

You mean the VA has an armed branch? Or you mean, the VA coordinates with an actual police force?

Wait, since you brought it up and are playing games, where exactly do you work?

There will be security there.
If a military hospital there will be MPs
If a regular hospital you call the Po Po.
Not getting your freaking point, although I like the idea of armed nurses more and more.

Nurse Patrol. They'll put you into the ER, and then get you back out!

Nurse Patrol. Mess with their scrubs and they'll give you the big guns!

Nurse Patrol. They WILL take your temperature!

Adepta Nutricia

 Manchu wrote:

 d-usa wrote:

Do you think there should also be a group of armed, tactically trained nurses?

No. We have our own police department, for investigating and enforcing federal laws that relate to our operation.

You mean the VA has an armed branch? Or you mean, the VA coordinates with an actual police force?

We have our own.

 d-usa wrote:
We have our own.

The VA isn't a police force. Arming some VA employees is not the same thing as having police. Nor does the model make any sense when compared to any other hospital administration.

 Manchu wrote:

Do you think there should also be a group of armed, tactically trained federal nurses?

I don't believe there is a Federal Nurse Association, so your argument is based on false pretenses.

 d-usa wrote:
...the FBI is not the "Federal PD".

Actually, they are. The problem is, a bunch of other federal agencies are also the "Federal PD". I'm arguing that the FBI should be an omnibus law enforcement agency for the Federal Government (or at least as much as possible) and these other agencies should be required to use/coordinate with the FBI for any enforcement action that would require the use of a "tactical" response team.

 Breotan wrote:

 d-usa wrote:
...the FBI is not the "Federal PD".

Actually, they are. The problem is, a bunch of other federal agencies are also the "Federal PD". I'm arguing that the FBI should be an omnibus law enforcement agency for the Federal Government (or at least as much as possible) and these other agencies should be required to use/coordinate with the FBI for any enforcement action that would require the use of a "tactical" response team.

I believe the Marshalls are technically the Federal PD?

Edit: that was supposed to be a question, not a statement.

 dogma wrote:
I don't believe there is a Federal Nurse Association, so your argument is based on false pretenses.

It was an argument in the spirit of a slant rhyme.

 Manchu wrote:

 d-usa wrote:
We have our own.

The VA isn't a police force. Arming some VA employees is not the same thing as having police. Nor does the model make any sense when compared to any other hospital administration.

So the United States Department of Veterans Affairs Police does not count as the VA having a police? It's just "arming some VA employees"?

The lack of knowledge about what it is that these departments do, and how it might be or might not be law enforcement, is not exactly making these arguments against them look very educated.

 streamdragon wrote:


I believe the Marshalls are technically the Federal PD?

Edit: that was supposed to be a question, not a statement.

Good point.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Marshals_Service

The Marshals Service is part of the executive branch of government, and is the enforcement arm of the U.S. federal courts.

 d-usa wrote:
So the United States Department of Veterans Affairs Police does not count as the VA having a police? It's just "arming some VA employees"?

Yes, you're still talking about giving a badge and a gun to a federal employee of a non-police agency. The VA is undoubtedly its own little empire as a matter of fact (just like the BLM). But I don't think that's a good thing.

 Manchu wrote:
Adepta Nutricia

You're good.